Hi all,
I had sent this email re improving the way that we pubish
aerogear.org.
Some may have seen it and replied but as there is some problems with
aerogear-dev mailing and there has been some further discussions I wanted
to reopen a conversation re
Aerogear.org.
With the move to the aerogear org there has been some conversation aroung
an overhaul of the
aerogear.org website.
It was also suggested that we could go with a brand new site rather than
rejigging the old site.
I'm thinking that it would be worth having a discussion around how we would
go about this.
If anyone has particular interest in this and/or experience with the old
site and existing tech and wants to open a proposal/discussion re tech
stack, design, content etc I think it would be suitable to to do that via
the proposals repo [1] or via some discussion here.
I've been involved in adding some content recently with the Aerogear Digger
Project and my vote would be for creating something new and shiny!!!
Wdy guys t?
[1]
https://github.com/aerogear/proposals
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Laura Fitzgerald <lfitzger(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
I have recently gone through the process of publishing documentation for
AeroGear Digger to
aerogear.org.
The process for adding docs for digger was as follows:
- Make changes on Feature Branch over a period of time.
- At some point merge lots of commits (difficult to review) from Feature
Branch to master.
- This publishes to
staging.aerogear.org (build needs to be manually
triggered in Jenkins)
- At some point merge master (again with lots of commits) to production
branch
- This publishes to
aerogear.org (build needs to be manually triggered)
Out of this we attempted to improve the process by adding development
steps to the README [1] outlining that
-> each change should be verified on it's own -> merged to master -> and
then merged to production
removing the wait time and merges which involved lots of commits and
changes.
*I think there are a few things we can do to make this better. (simpler)*
*1) How?*
Remove the production branch (and related steps) altogether.
*Why?*
- All this documentation is done in the open.
- All branches are visible to all users/developers.
-
staging.aerogear.org is not private so I don't see that we gain
something by having this step.
- Changes can be verified locally by building the website using the steps
in the README [2] before being merged to master.
*2) How?*
Automate the publishing of the site
*Why?*
Right now the building of the site has to be triggered manually via a
Jenkins instance on cloudbees. If we remove production and enforce that all
changes are fully verified before being merged to master then we can
automate that any new changes are published immediately once merged to
master.
*3) How?*
Add some sort of versioning to the documentation. This could be in the
form of tagging the repo once we have a release of a product.
*Why?*
If we are always publishing docs once a change is made to the product then
we should version the documentation so we know which version of the docs
matches older versions of the product.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm really interested in some feedback on this. Let me know what you
think. Is there a better/simpler way to do it than I suggested?
[1]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/
master/README.md#development-steps
[2]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/
master/README.md#building
--
LAURA FITZGERALD
Red Hat Mobile <
https://www.redhat.com/>
Communications House, Cork Road
Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33
lfitzger(a)redhat.com IM: lfitzgerald
<
https://red.ht/sig>
--
LAURA FITZGERALD
Red Hat Mobile <
https://www.redhat.com/>
Communications House, Cork Road
Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33
lfitzger(a)redhat.com IM: lfitzgerald
<
https://red.ht/sig>